War in Ukraine

[Stirlingsays]

Ha Ha Ha Ha!

In your face Putin! I hope you shed a tear (not that you care about your own people, only your supposed legacy).

That told him.

 

[Stirlingsays]

The way I see it, there were only two ways to shut this down immediately. One was immediately send large amount of Western/ NATO troops - a line in the sand that wouldn't have been worth it to Putin, in my opinion. Sounds quite unlikely with how pathetic all of our governments and armed forces are - and how, as usual, we well overrated Russian forces.
The other would have been to immediately capitulate, or to force Ukraine to capitulate (oh dear, Zelensky had an accident, look at this shiny politician the EU and Putin says is fine).
I struggle to think either option was really feasible. Obviously, something could still happen to Zelensky but it will be just an unfortunate accident.
This has followed classic Cold War proxy war doctrines - which it always was going to. Both sides need a way to save face when this ends. And then they can say how they actually won - or just ignore it aka Afghanistan or Vietnam.

I don't see sending Nato troops is realistic unless an actual Nato country is attacked. If your soldiers are going to die in someone's else's war you better have the public behind it as you're talking about the blood price.

Russia have a reason to fight, it's a Slavic border country, for them this is akin to an enemy being in Wales would be for us. Not that much nationalism actually exists in this country anymore after three generations of social liberalism and leftism attacking, demonising and punishing any form of nationalism.....I mean who would actually fight for the pride parade mob? They can't even maintain the small numbers they have in the military as it is.

What I think we can be sure of is that Ukraine are going to undergo a power struggle. Trump is going to want Zelensky to face up to the military realities on the ground to negotiate for peace. What will be fascinating will be how the rest of Nato responds to that....because up to now they have been as gung ho as Biden. If they change their tune does this mean that Zelensky and the Ukrainian military establishment sue for peace?

I'm doubtful personally....In fact I think accepting the reality of the battlefield situation would mark any leader for death....I suppose similar to Michael Collins.

So I think you're right, an negotiated settlement with Russia would only work in Ukraine if a power struggle saw its nationalist forces removed from power......Personally I don't see that happening but what do I know.

I think the war will continue until one side collapses....it's going to be horrible....That was the madness that was decided on once 2022 was discarded and maybe that's what happens. I certainly don't see Trump continuing to spend tens of billions supporting another foreign war.

 

[beak]

When I heard he was dead, my first thought was that it was Putin.

Hopefully Putin is next.

 

[Spiderman]

You literally once argued that Halifax had the correct position in WW2. I don't think you actually think this, but it's symptom that the world is complex and simply opting for a 'enemy of my enemy is my friend' way of viewing life doesn't translate to international politics and grand strategy. Sadly I think you struggle with this nuance.

I've always argued Ukraine should be allowed to end the war on realistic terms. The problem as I continually point out and you continually ignore is that Putin is not interested in a comprising peace, and that without real tangible ability to actually stop Putin from just reinvading (such as NATO membership for Ukraine), any 'peace' is temporary at most and will just lead to worse results for both the west and Ukraine.

Ukrainians begging for supplies to fight for their own independence = people like me wanting other people to do their fighting for them. Pure loony toons.

This old Kremlin talking point. Demanding an election which you wouldn't even recognise while allowing releasing Russia of it's democratic obligations. Why not allow all of Ukraine and Crimea a free and fair referendum (one not observed by the socialist workers party) as to if they would like be Ukrainian or Russian?





I didn't know you were in favour of people dying of cancer... You must be right, as youre on here and not in a lab curing cancer?

Seriously why aren't you trying to cure cancer right now? I can't stand people like you who claim to not want people dying of cancer but aren't actively out curing cancer.

I'm going to stop there because typing that out made me feel so disingenuously stupid. What you wrote should make you feel the same.

Whataboutism concedes the point.

If you were a russian I think this point might carry but you're not. Being concerned about your country waging a colonial war of aggression on its neighbours is perfectly valid. Supporting a third party country hostile to your own as it conducts a brutal war and echoing it's talking points as gospel is wrong.

Again, more whataboutism.

The first gulf war? The one which was caused by Iraq deciding it's neighbour Kuwait didn't have right to statehood so he started a brutal and unprovoked invasion. The war which ended in the total victory and liberation of Kuwait with almost no coalition casualties and led to the humbling of a brutal dictator but yet apparently made everything worse? Stirling.... If you had opposed that interest of letting Saddam win and allowing the global supply of oil to be further disrupted I'd have definitely called you an appeaser and an apologist.

Right, so to use a Russia is just totally winning argument for a hindsight peace deal when Russia is actually not just totally winning (in the grand scheme of things - it's winning in some ways of course) is not a sensible arguement. Glad we agree.

Could you be more specific?

This is the whole point, eventually it does become your problem. If might equals right and you can have things just because you want them, you end up with a Falklands situation where our interests are harmed. We live in a world where we submit ourselves to law, if you abandon that world it's only us who will lose out.

So much wrong with this arguement. Firstly if your solution is that nuclear blackmail should always be respected. Every country in the world will proliferate. How does that make the world safer?

Secondly Ukraine literally non-proliferated at the request of the west (and Russia) in exchange that it's sovereignty would be respected. To turn your back on this is in itself a decision, a decision with consequences. All of this only increases the likelihood of a nuclear exchange, not decreases it.


Data and polling says the total opposite, I think people are very concerned about outsourcing their countries energy supply to unstable dictators because of some bonkers net zero target or whatever political drive is in fashion.

They are totally different conflicts which are not directly comparable in hardly any way. To try to compare these is just glib and disingenuous at best. Pure Kremlin guff at worse.

Depends on what the treaty was. As you suggest from your 'evidence'. A total surrender deal (appeasement) would have been highly costly to the UK and would accelerate us to another world war.

If only such a thing existed beyond 'pwease just surwender ukwaine'...

What would Russia compromise on? Not taking more land isn't a compromise....

Agreed. Good thing no one is making you.

Refer you to my point above. What will Russia concede on?

Lining up some fresh cope already for when Trump lets you down. Lovely stuff.

Stay warm.

Do you live in Leeds by any chance?

 

[Stirlingsays]

You literally once argued that Halifax had the correct position in WW2.

He did.

Halifax was being rational.

Churchill, like Zelensky is today, was literally basing his entire war strategy on getting America physically into the war. It wasn't happening....American opinion was against it even if the US president was secretly keen....it's the same now but the big difference is now we have nukes.

We lucked out in WW2......Well, if you consider what happened afterwards as worth winning.

If Hitler hadn't decided on operation Barbarossa in 41 we were toast......He said he wouldn't fight a two front war and but that's what he ended up deciding on (probably because of his own health concerns he wanted victory before he declined).

Hitler was an all or nothing kind of guy...If he had played the percentages he could have divided up Europe, with Stalin taking Poland and Finland.....But it was always about destroying communism for him.

There was no way Churchill could have known what Hitler was going to do.....Similar to Hitler he was all or nothing.

 

[Stirlingsays]

Ukraine shuts down its open source intelligence reporting.

 

[georgenorman]

He did.

Halifax was being rational.

Churchill, like Zelensky is today, was literally basing his entire war strategy on getting America physically into the war. It wasn't happening....American opinion was against it even if the US president was secretly keen....it's the same now but the big difference is now we have nukes.

We lucked out in WW2......Well, if you consider what happened afterwards as worth winning.

If Hitler hadn't decided on operation Barbarossa in 41 we were toast......He said he wouldn't fight a two front war and but that's what he ended up deciding on (probably because of his own health concerns he wanted victory before he declined).

Hitler was an all or nothing kind of guy...If he had played the percentages he could have divided up Europe, with Stalin taking Poland and Finland.....But it was always about destroying communism for him.

There was no way Churchill could have known what Hitler was going to do.....Similar to Hitler he was all or nothing.

I think we probably would still have won had the USA not entered the war as the tide had already turned by the time that they did. Obviously it would have been far costlier in terms of lives and resources though.

 

[Stirlingsays]

I think we probably would still have won had the USA not entered the war as the tide had already turned by the time that they did. Obviously it would have been far costlier in terms of lives and resources though.

Even though it was close Hitler miscalculated when he invaded Russia in 41......He knew himself that if the Axis were to win WW2 that he had to control Russia by the end of 42. For reasons that fill entire books that didn't happen.

As for 'winning' the war that for us, in a practical sense meant surviving it. We did that, though the consequences of the war essentially destroyed us.....Everything you see now, here and in Europe, has been as a consequence of those two world wars.

 

[Badger11]

Even though it was close Hitler miscalculated when he invaded Russia in 41......He knew himself that if the Axis were to win WW2 that he had to control Russia by the end of 42. For reasons that fill entire books that didn't happen.

By the time America had entered the war in 43, the German high command secretly knew they would lose the war. It was a last throw of the dice to declare war on the US and thus support Japan. Most, though not all, the US war effort was in the pacific rather than Europe.

As for 'winning' the war that for us, in a practical sense meant surviving it. We did that, though the consequences of the war essentially destroyed us.....Everything you see now, here and in Europe, has been as a consequence of those two world wars.

I have never understood why neo Nazis idolise Hitler. Leaving aside his absolute barbarity (difficult to do) he was an idiot. In 1941 Hitler was still at war with an undefeated world power (Britain) he decides to invade a second world power Russia and with in six months declares war on the last remaining one (USA).

What an idiot.

 

[Stirlingsays]

I have never understood why neo Nazis idolise Hitler. Leaving aside his absolute barbarity (difficult to do) he was an idiot. In 1941 Hitler was still at war with an undefeated world power (Britain) he decides to invade a second world power Russia and with in six months declares war on the last remaining one (USA).

What an idiot.

To understand Hitler you have to understand the time and essentially read his book.

He thought that communism was going to overtake Europe....

He thought that for Europe to survive that communism had to be defeated.

Was Hitler evil? I agree with you that what he did was barbarism.....Still, what he did is still done today....and people will always find words to defend barbarism against their enemies.....the 'them or us' take.

 

[Badger11]

To understand Hitler you have to understand the time and essentially read his book.

He thought that communism was going to overtake Europe....

He thought that for Europe to survive that communism had to be defeated.

Was Hitler evil? I agree with you that what he did was barbarism.....Still, what he did is still done today....and people will always find words to defend barbarism against their enemies.....the 'them or us' take.

Just because he thought those things still doesn't mean he wasn't an idiot. If the neo Nazis have to admire anyone they would be better off looking at Franco or the bloke who ran Portugal. Both despicable monsters but they knew how to hang onto power and not get involved in world wars.

 

[georgenorman]

Even though it was close Hitler miscalculated when he invaded Russia in 41......He knew himself that if the Axis were to win WW2 that he had to control Russia by the end of 42. For reasons that fill entire books that didn't happen.

As for 'winning' the war that for us, in a practical sense meant surviving it. We did that, though the consequences of the war essentially destroyed us.....Everything you see now, here and in Europe, has been as a consequence of those two world wars.

Maybe, but the alternative would have been worse.

 

[Stirlingsays]

Just because he thought those things still doesn't mean he wasn't an idiot. If the neo Nazis have to admire anyone they would be better off looking at Franco or the bloke who ran Portugal. Both despicable monsters but they knew how to hang onto power and not get involved in world wars.

I tend towards this view.

Germany was closer to Russia of course and it's also true that his opinion on communism and the need to expand Germany to the east wasn't just his opinion but was common in the military. All through the 20s Germany was dealing with conflict between communist and national socialist parties....One of these was bound to succeed considering the economic situation.

Hitler was probably the worst pick to succeed.....Yep, Franco wasn't the zealot that Hitler was.

 

[Stirlingsays]

Maybe, but the alternative would have been worse.

There was a third way.

Staying out of the war....that's my position anyway.

 

[beak]

There was a third way.

Staying out of the war....that's my position anyway.

They are the words every vicious Dictator who covets his neighbours land wishes to hear.For bad deeds to thrive all it needs is good men to do nothing.One hand clapping.😡👎

 

[Stirlingsays]

They are the words every vicious Dictator who covets his neighbours land wishes to hear.For bad deeds to thrive all it needs is good men to do nothing.One hand clapping.😡👎

So get to the trench big man.

Live your principles and I'll live mine.

I'll fight for what I believe in, you go die for the slavs if you want to.

 

[georgenorman]

There was a third way.

Staying out of the war....that's my position anyway.

I think we would have had to fight sooner or later, as the USA found.

 

[Stirlingsays]

I think we would have had to fight sooner or later, as the USA found.

US public opinion was against joining the war, but the president lied about his intention to get elected and then did the old switcheroo.

How much did the US intelligence services know about Pearl Harbour beforehand? There is suspicion....though perhaps not quite as strong as Israel knowing about October 7th being planned.

We disagree on the wisdom of getting involved in that war, and my evidence of course is everything that's happened as a consequence of it.

 

[georgenorman]

US public opinion was against joining the war, but the president lied about his intention to get elected and then did the old switcheroo.

How much did the US intelligence services know about Pearl Harbour beforehand? There is suspicion....though perhaps not quite as strong as Israel knowing about October 7th being planned.

We disagree on the wisdom of getting involved in that war, and my evidence of course is everything that's happened as a consequence of it.

It's not clear whether the USA would have joined us in fighting Germany had Hitler not declared war on them or even fighting Japan if it had not been for Pearl Harbour.

 

[beak]

So get to the trench big man.

Live your principles and I'll live mine.

I'll fight for what I believe in, you go die for the slavs if you want to.

Without doubt far too big for you, I agree.